Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Ortiz to accept arbitration per ESPN


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#51 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,747 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:10 PM

This is where I'm at. I'm hopeful Middlebrooks will be ready, which means we would only want to bring back one of Youk or Ortiz. (Hopeful does not mean I am counting on it, just that it is a serious possibility that should impact decision making at the margins.) How confident are we that we will want Ortiz to be the DH instead of Youk, assuming a roughly similar cost? How willing are we to commit to the second year and risk Ortiz getting hurt and becoming dead money when the organization has a team option for a perfectly adequate replacement?

If they had been able to work out 2/24 prior to Ortiz accepting arbitration, I would've taken that as the cost of keeping him on the Sox for 2012, where he is definitely needed. Now, I'd prefer they pay the premium for the 1 year deal and reassess next offseason.


Youk is unlikely to finish 2013 in Boston, whether Papi is here or not. He isn't an endearing guy, and he's worth more to a team that would use him at 1B. The Sox won't let him block their #1 prospect (and I say this as someone who's decidedly bearish on WMB).

#52 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 24,813 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:48 PM

Why is Youkilis worth more at 1B than 3B? I don't get that. That he's not "endearing" seems subjective and irrelevant. I suspect he finishes out his contract with the Sox; although a monster year by WMB gives the Sox a lot of options.

I think Youks is highly underappreciated, OPS+ of 143, 145, and 157 the past three years, and a necessary RH bat with all the Sox lefties. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Sox tanked when he got hurt. Really need him this year.

#53 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,416 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 03:25 PM

But, if Ortiz wins, it's $16 million this year, and the lux tax implication may mean that a $10 million contract next year costs $14 million. If it's going to cost you $4 million next year, anyway (and everything else with the multiplier) it'd be better to savea couple million on the lux tax hit this year -- assuming they have a chance to get under the cap.


Sounds like you're assuming that we'll want to re-sign Ortiz for 2013. But if Middlebrooks is ready (and I think there's good reason to hope he will be), then we will not be carrying him, Youk and Ortiz for 2013. We'll have three choices: let go of Ortiz; let go of Youk (by not exercising his option), or trade WMB and hope Youk can continue playing third until Cecchini or Bogaerts is ready, which probably means through his age 35 or even age 36 year.

It would be good to be able to choose on the merits from all of those options when the time comes. If we sign Ortiz for two years then only the latter two options will be available, unless we want to let WMB overripen in triple-A--and if we're trying to hold down the budget, I can't imagine a worse thing than having a guy playing in Pawtucket when he could productively fill a Boston starting slot at the ML minimum, replacing a guy making >$10M. (Of course we don't know for sure that WMB will be ready for 2013, but that's the point--we don't know.)

#54 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,747 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 03:57 PM

Why is Youkilis worth more at 1B than 3B? I don't get that. That he's not "endearing" seems subjective and irrelevant. I suspect he finishes out his contract with the Sox; although a monster year by WMB gives the Sox a lot of options.

I think Youks is highly underappreciated, OPS+ of 143, 145, and 157 the past three years, and a necessary RH bat with all the Sox lefties. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Sox tanked when he got hurt. Really need him this year.


A few things:

-- I agree that Youk is a great player, and he's under contract for two more seasons at a reasonable cost. But I reject the notion this team "needs" its third or fourth-best hitter.

-- Youk is not a very good defensive 3B, and playing there might exacerbate his vulnerability to injury. He was an excellent defender at 1B when he last played there.

-- As Savin Hillbilly states, the Sox can ill afford to leave Middlebrooks in Pawtucket if he's ready for The Show.

-- If there is a 3-way 1B/DH log jam (either because WMB is ready, or Youk can no longer play third) then Youk's personality could absolutely be a factor in him being the odd man out -- though contract status and trade value are (or at least, should be) bigger factors.

Edited by maufman, 20 January 2012 - 03:58 PM.


#55 Bowlerman9


  • bitchslapped by Keith Law


  • 5,010 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 04:13 PM

-- Youk is not a very good defensive 3B


According to whom?

#56 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 24,813 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 04:14 PM

Fair enough, I'd just argue that it's all moot until WMB proves he's ready, and leaving him in the minors a little long (as they did with Youks) isnt that awful. WMB had a nice year in AA, but he's got a lot to work on.

Also, bb-ref hadnt updated Youks page yet, OPS+ I listed were 08-10, last year he was 123.

Having the option on Youks is a huge benefit, though. lot of flexibility depending on what happens with WMB, Papi,etc.

#57 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 9,130 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 05:23 PM

According to whom?


FWIW, both Total Zone and UZR have Youkilis as just barely above average at 3B over 2555 career innings and just barely below average in 2011. Given the positional difference between 1B and 3B, he'd definitely be more valuable as a 3B if those numbers were accurate going forward. Of course, even if you believe them looking backward it's entirely possible that he's aged out of being an average-ish 3B or will do so soon.

#58 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,416 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 08:16 PM

FWIW, both Total Zone and UZR have Youkilis as just barely above average at 3B over 2555 career innings and just barely below average in 2011. Given the positional difference between 1B and 3B, he'd definitely be more valuable as a 3B if those numbers were accurate going forward. Of course, even if you believe them looking backward it's entirely possible that he's aged out of being an average-ish 3B or will do so soon.


I think that's the key point--he may still be an everyday 3B now, but for how much longer, considering that he's 33 and increasingly brittle? That has to be a consideration for any team thinking about acquiring him.

I'll admit, I have a dog in this hunt: I'd like Youk to be our DH from 2013 on. He's a righthanded hitter with power on a team that's likely to be predominantly left-handed for a while. Unlike Ortiz, he has enough defensive skill to be a thoroughly viable option as a backup at both of the corner IF positions. And apparently unlike most people around here, I kind of dig his ornery personality. I'd love to see him stick around as a DH/3B/1B until he retires, say five or six years from now.

#59 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 08:38 PM

Assuming Ortiz has a 875+ OPS in 2012 and Youkilis maintains his performance as well, then I'd still keep both of them for 2013. If Middlebrooks repeats his AA performance in AAA this year, that doesn't mean he's ready to be the 3B on the $180 million Red Sox. I think if WMB has a great season in Pawtucket, and then a great spring in 2013, you send him back to Pawtucket for April in order to keep the service time clock on 0. Then if he mashes AAA in April 2013, bring him up and get him 200 at bats spellling Youkilis, Ortiz, and Gonzalez to see if he can hit major league pitching. If he passes that part-time test, you can make him the starter in 2014.

#60 JakeRae

  • 4,454 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 08:45 PM

Assuming Ortiz has a 875+ OPS in 2012 and Youkilis maintains his performance as well, then I'd still keep both of them for 2013. If Middlebrooks repeats his AA performance in AAA this year, that doesn't mean he's ready to be the 3B on the $180 million Red Sox. I think if WMB has a great season in Pawtucket, and then a great spring in 2013, you send him back to Pawtucket for April in order to keep the service time clock on 0. Then if he mashes AAA in April 2013, bring him up and get him 200 at bats spellling Youkilis, Ortiz, and Gonzalez to see if he can hit major league pitching. If he passes that part-time test, you can make him the starter in 2014.

But, if he is ready and there is another need, the organization will need to seriously consider the $12 million or more they could save and invest elsewhere via using Middlebrooks. The money can't just be dismissed.

#61 SoxScout


  • SoSH Member


  • 28,737 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 08:56 PM

Assuming Ortiz has a 875+ OPS in 2012 and Youkilis maintains his performance as well, then I'd still keep both of them for 2013. If Middlebrooks repeats his AA performance in AAA this year, that doesn't mean he's ready to be the 3B on the $180 million Red Sox. I think if WMB has a great season in Pawtucket, and then a great spring in 2013, you send him back to Pawtucket for April in order to keep the service time clock on 0. Then if he mashes AAA in April 2013, bring him up and get him 200 at bats spelling Youkilis, Ortiz, and Gonzalez to see if he can hit major league pitching. If he passes that part-time test, you can make him the starter in 2014.


I don't like this approach with Middlebrooks at all. He is a top prospect with plus IF D and a potential middle of the order bat. He needs to play every day, like he will, and when it gets to the point that he is ready, there needs to be an every day job waiting for him to sink or swim with. I don't see how sprinkling 250 at bats to him in his age 24 season is productive at all. Hell, if he is starting and hitting .240 at 250 at bats I would hope the Sox continue to ride him. Here's hoping he plays well enough this year that he is forcing their hand next winter.

#62 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 10:55 PM

I don't like this approach with Middlebrooks at all. He is a top prospect with plus IF D and a potential middle of the order bat. He needs to play every day, like he will, and when it gets to the point that he is ready, there needs to be an every day job waiting for him to sink or swim with. I don't see how sprinkling 250 at bats to him in his age 24 season is productive at all. Hell, if he is starting and hitting .240 at 250 at bats I would hope the Sox continue to ride him. Here's hoping he plays well enough this year that he is forcing their hand next winter.


Middlebrooks is a AA infielder who had alarmingly low walk rate combined with a dangerously high strikeout rate. At this point, the only thing that makes him a better prosepct than Shea Hillenbrand is his reputation for defense. The Red Sox rightfully sold high on Hillenbrand. Unless Middlebrooks can not only maintain his AA production at AAA, but also combine that production with a significant increase in his walk rate or substantial decrease in his K rate (with greater improvement in one metric reducing the need for improvement in the other) then I have no interest in handing him 600 at bats at a key offensive position. That is reinforced by the fact that he'd be replacing the second best righthanded bat in a lefthanded heavy lineup and doing so at the same time as many people are clammoring to put a guy with all the offensive prowess of a wet noodle at shortstop.

Secondarily, I agree with the poster upthread who said there is long-term franchise value in maximizing the tenure of iconic players rather than always looking to minimize $$/WAR. I am looking forward to having David Ortiz finish as high as possible on lists of all-time Red Sox statistical leaders almost as much as I'd look forward to a marginally better chance of getting a 50/50 chance of losing the play-in game to the postseason round robin exhibition tournament that has replaced the playoffs and world series.

Edited by Plympton91, 20 January 2012 - 10:57 PM.


#63 SoxScout


  • SoSH Member


  • 28,737 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 11:16 PM

Middlebrooks is a AA infielder who had alarmingly low walk rate combined with a dangerously high strikeout rate. At this point, the only thing that makes him a better prosepct than Shea Hillenbrand is his reputation for defense. The Red Sox rightfully sold high on Hillenbrand. Unless Middlebrooks can not only maintain his AA production at AAA, but also combine that production with a significant increase in his walk rate or substantial decrease in his K rate (with greater improvement in one metric reducing the need for improvement in the other) then I have no interest in handing him 600 at bats at a key offensive position.


You said: "I think if WMB has a great season in Pawtucket, and then a great spring in 2013, you send him back to Pawtucket for April in order to keep the service time clock on 0. Then if he mashes AAA in April 2013"

Also that Hillenbrand comment is ridiculous.

At age 22 WMB hit .302/.345/.520 in AA

At age 24 Hillenbrand hit .323/.355/.463 AA

#64 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 12:20 AM

You said: "I think if WMB has a great season in Pawtucket, and then a great spring in 2013, you send him back to Pawtucket for April in order to keep the service time clock on 0. Then if he mashes AAA in April 2013"


If, as a 23-year-old he matched his AA production in AAA, that would be a great season. It would not be good enough for me to entrust 3B to him in 2013, however, unless his walk rate goes up and his strikeout rate declines, with at least one doing so substantially. Given the K rate, Middlebrook's average, and thus, OBP must be dependent on a high BABIP. Without more walks or more contact, he could easily hit the ball just as hard in AAA and see his slash numbers decline 25 points across the board. That would make them .277 / .320 / .495. Not good enough at 3B for a team that aspires to win the postseason exhibition tournament.

Also that Hillenbrand comment is ridiculous.

At age 22 WMB hit .302/.345/.520 in AA

At age 24 Hillenbrand hit .323/.355/.463 AA


Duly noted. At age 20 in AA, Dernell Stenson had an OBP of .378 and a SLG of .446. People thought it was a good idea to get rid of Mo Vaughn in order to make room for him.

#65 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,731 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 09:31 AM

If, as a 23-year-old he matched his AA production in AAA, that would be a great season. It would not be good enough for me to entrust 3B to him in 2013, however, unless his walk rate goes up and his strikeout rate declines, with at least one doing so substantially. Given the K rate, Middlebrook's average, and thus, OBP must be dependent on a high BABIP. Without more walks or more contact, he could easily hit the ball just as hard in AAA and see his slash numbers decline 25 points across the board. That would make them .277 / .320 / .495. Not good enough at 3B for a team that aspires to win the postseason exhibition tournament.


In that case we need to know 2 things:
  • What is an acceptable slash line for a "3B for a team that aspires to win the postseason exhibition tournament" (factoring in good defense)?
  • How exactly would you plan to work in any young player from the minor leagues?
The second issue is more important, and speaks to SoxScout's point regarding Middlebrooks, but it also applies to any prospect the Sox might have actually play for them. Unless a prospect comes up and immediately is contending for the ROY, he doesn't sound like he's going to be good enough for you (and IIRC you were a big proponent of sending Pedroia back down to AAA when he first struggled for his first month or two upon reaching the majors). SoxScout's point is a longterm plan that will allow Middlebrooks the best chance to develop into a valuable contributor for the 6+ seasons that he's under Sox control.

OTOH the idea that "there is long-term franchise value in maximizing the tenure of iconic players rather than always looking to minimize $$/WAR" basically just another way to it's OK to overpay for declining veterans, as long as they're popular. I don't think you're going to be able to come up with any evidence that the Sox will gain either wins on the field or dollars in the coffers (via butts in the seats) by following this course of action. Winning helps the long-term franchise value where the end of a player's career who is declining out of usefulness often gets overlooked when we look back at his career with the rose colored glasses.

#66 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,747 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 09:46 AM

While I share P91's pessimism about Middlebrooks, OCD hits the nail on the head -- following P91's logic would lead to a Red Sox club that looked a lot like the 1980s MFY, with young prospects consistently shipped out for "proven" veterans. That's no way to run a franchise. And while some minor benefits might accrue to the Sox by having, say, David Ortiz finish his career in Boston, if followed across the board P91's approach would ensure that the next generation of Pedroias, Lesters, et al. would be shipped out of here long before they even established themselves as major leaguers, let alone became icons.

I would love to see WMB go to Chicago as the centerpiece of a Matt Garza trade, but it's clear the club's financial position doesn't permit that kind of move. The next best option is to hang on to WMB and hope he proves me wrong.

#67 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 10:00 AM

While I share P91's pessimism about Middlebrooks, OCD hits the nail on the head -- following P91's logic would lead to a Red Sox club that looked a lot like the 1980s MFY, with young prospects consistently shipped out for "proven" veterans. That's no way to run a franchise. And while some minor benefits might accrue to the Sox by having, say, David Ortiz finish his career in Boston, if followed across the board P91's approach would ensure that the next generation of Pedroias, Lesters, et al. would be shipped out of here long before they even established themselves as major leaguers, let alone became icons.

I would love to see WMB go to Chicago as the centerpiece of a Matt Garza trade, but it's clear the club's financial position doesn't permit that kind of move. The next best option is to hang on to WMB and hope he proves me wrong.


You should know better than to think I'm proposing a one size fits all rule of thumb. The problem with Middlebrooks is that he's a low walk, high strikeout prospect. More of them fail than succeed. While he has been somewhat better than the failed prospects I've mentioned in the thread, he is difference in degree from Hillenbrand, Stenson, and even Wilton Veras, not a difference in type. He's on an improving trajectory, which means I am far, far from writing him off, but no, you can't replace Youkilis with a rookie, and you especially can't do that in the same year you're planning on handing shortstop to a guy who has yet to prove he's a better hitter than Mark Belanger.

In contrast, I was more than happy to have Pedroia and Lowrie -- good on-base guys all through the minors -- and Ellsbury -- no walks but also consistent contact -- break in. In addition to having both patience and contact skills, Pedroia was replacing Mark Loretta near the bottom of an already stacked lineup with a capable part-timer behind him in Alex Cora and so failure was an acceptable option (I don't remember beating a drum to send Pedroia down all while he struggled, I may posted in frustration once or twice though; however, mostly I thought Francona handled that situation perfectly by lightly platooning with Cora until Pedroia got comfortable). Similarly, Lowrie was replacing a trio of expensive suck that had manned the position in previous seasons and was backed up by the more-than-capable Scutaro. Ellsbury was being blocked by a very similar player with far less upside in Crisp and essentially served as a heavily used fourth outfielder his first year, also a perfect way to break in.

To reiterate and sum up, Middlebrooks would be replacing the Red Sox cleanup hitter who, while aging, would still be in the back-end of what should be his prime (which I consider 27 to 34) and if he failed to produce the only remaining option would be to make a trade or play a light hitting utility infielder at 3B full time. At the same time as the Red Sox would be taking this risk, there are many who feel they should also hand shortstop to Jose Iglesias, who had one of the worst offensive seasons by a regular in the history of the Pawtucket Red Sox in 2011.

Edited by Plympton91, 21 January 2012 - 10:05 AM.


#68 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,416 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 10:49 AM

To reiterate and sum up, Middlebrooks would be replacing the Red Sox cleanup hitter who, while aging, would still be in the back-end of what should be his prime (which I consider 27 to 34) and if he failed to produce the only remaining option would be to make a trade or play a light hitting utility infielder at 3B full time. At the same time as the Red Sox would be taking this risk, there are many who feel they should also hand shortstop to Jose Iglesias, who had one of the worst offensive seasons by a regular in the history of the Pawtucket Red Sox in 2011.


Speaking only for myself, I never said I felt sure WMB would be ready to replace Youk in 2013 (in fact I seem to recall emphasizing that I wasn't sure of it). What I said was that I didn't like the idea of signing Ortiz for two years because it would tie our hands in case WMB did turn out to be ready.

There's 20/20 hindsight implicit in the way you're approaching the question. Maybe you were "happy to have Pedroia....break in." But certainly many weren't, and for a while there, it looked like they might be right. The only way to be sure was to give him a real opportunity (i.e., not giving up on him after a bad month or two). You say "you can't replace Youkilis with a rookie." Sooner or later, you will sometimes have to replace players like Youkilis and Ortiz with rookies, unless you're going the '80s-Yankees route that maufman alluded to. There's always risk there, and sometimes it won't work, and you need to have a good plan B in those cases.

And again, that's part of the reason why I don't like the two-year deal for Papi. Because if we do end up giving Middlebrooks a shot at the starting job in 2013, I'd rather have Youk than Ortiz as the DH, so if WMB falters, we have a capable guy ready to step back into the job.

#69 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 11:08 AM

There's always risk there, and sometimes it won't work, and you need to have a good plan B in those cases.


That pretty much sums up in one sentence the philosophy I was trying to lay out for the conditions under which you'd insert a rookie into the lineup. You need to have a player backing up the rookie who is a credible starting player in the major leagues.

And again, that's part of the reason why I don't like the two-year deal for Papi. Because if we do end up giving Middlebrooks a shot at the starting job in 2013, I'd rather have Youk than Ortiz as the DH, so if WMB falters, we have a capable guy ready to step back into the job.


That's a good point. I guess that's why you're much better off having someone who can think like a cold-blooded shark as the GM rather than a fan. Finding a plan B at DH is a lot easier than finding a plan B at 3B.

#70 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,731 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 11:56 PM

That pretty much sums up in one sentence the philosophy I was trying to lay out for the conditions under which you'd insert a rookie into the lineup. You need to have a player backing up the rookie who is a credible starting player in the major leagues.


In most cases this is not a realistic plan, unless you're willing to credit Alex Cora or Nick Punto as credible starting players in the major leagues. Unless the Sox have that player already under control (say Lowrie or Aviles), they're not likely to sign a free agent who meets your lofty standards who'd accept backing up a prospect.

OTOH if those are the guys you're talking about as back-ups, is it really so hard to imagine that Middlebrooks will at least equal their production?

#71 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 22 January 2012 - 11:09 PM

In most cases this is not a realistic plan, unless you're willing to credit Alex Cora or Nick Punto as credible starting players in the major leagues. Unless the Sox have that player already under control (say Lowrie or Aviles), they're not likely to sign a free agent who meets your lofty standards who'd accept backing up a prospect.

OTOH if those are the guys you're talking about as back-ups, is it really so hard to imagine that Middlebrooks will at least equal their production?


Yes, at the time they were breaking Pedroia in, given the likelihood that Pedroia would succeed, and the fact that they didn't need him to be a core offensive producer, Alex Cora was an acceptable insurance policy.

I gave two other very specific examples above, here's another two.

When the Red Sox broke in Nomar, they easily could have moved Valentin back to SS if he wasn't ready.

When they broke in Youkilis, they did it by giving him enough major league at bats with Mueller under contract to be sure his style would play in the majors.

#72 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,731 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:37 AM

The problem is that your examples do not match the current situation w/ Middlebrooks. Mueller and Valentine were players who were under team control well before the prospect who replaced them was on the scene. Given the timetable we're talking about for Middlebrooks, his cady would have to be under team control now. Unless you can identify someone who is on the roster who would be acceptable, we're talking about the sort of player who can be signed with the explicit intent of keeping the seat warm for a prospect, and the talent level of a player who would do that tend to not be as good as you appear to want. (There's also the possibility of acquiring this player in a trade, but then you're giving up talent for a cady (which strikes me as a pretty inefficient use of resources), and risking another Jay Payton situation.)

Furthermore the whole central premise is that the Sox have to let their young players struggle at the major league level as almost no one is going to come up and be an abover average player right away. Even the poster boy for the sucesses of developing position players, Pedroia, had to deal with plenty of people (you prominent among them, as I recall) saying that he should be sent down to the minors because he wasn't ready, and that Alex Cora (who admittedly was out-hitting Manny at the time) should be the starting 2Bman for the beginning of 2007. But Pedroia probably never gets to the ROY or any level of sustained sucsess if instead he's yo-yo'd around until he meets some knuckle headed short term expectations.

#73 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:50 AM

Furthermore the whole central premise is that the Sox have to let their young players struggle at the major league level as almost no one is going to come up and be an abover average player right away. Even the poster boy for the sucesses of developing position players, Pedroia, had to deal with plenty of people (you prominent among them, as I recall) saying that he should be sent down to the minors because he wasn't ready, and that Alex Cora (who admittedly was out-hitting Manny at the time) should be the starting 2Bman for the beginning of 2007. But Pedroia probably never gets to the ROY or any level of sustained sucsess if instead he's yo-yo'd around until he meets some knuckle headed short term expectations.


I think you're wrong about my views on Pedroia. Maybe after a particular 0-5, I posted something in frustration, but my main memory of that early season struggle was thinking how well Francona was doing in spotting Cora heavily until Pedroia got going.

Let's be specific about what the Red Sox are facing if they essentially replace Ortiz with Middlebrooks. The 2013 lineup would be:

Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis (DH) are 1 thorugh 4. So far so good. But then you need some combination of Saltalamacchia/Lavarnway, Crawford, Middlebrooks, Kalish, Iglesias to hit 5-9.

Does that seems like a lineup capable of winning the AL East in 2013? They can't just replace Ortiz with Middlebrooks. They need to replace Ortiz with somebody who's going to hit 5th and put up a 900 OPS. Or maybe you're happy to not be competitive in 2013. I guess that's an option.

Edited by Plympton91, 23 January 2012 - 10:52 AM.


#74 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 11,905 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 12:19 PM

Does that seems like a lineup capable of winning the AL East in 2013? They can't just replace Ortiz with Middlebrooks. They need to replace Ortiz with somebody who's going to hit 5th and put up a 900 OPS. Or maybe you're happy to not be competitive in 2013. I guess that's an option.


Finding a 900ops is a tall order. You can't look at one factor. If the a kid can replace Youks or Ortiz maybe there is an improvement on D, and a financial ability to improve another area. With the terrible two (lackey and Crawford) eating up so much money it seems the Sox probably need a prospect or two to pan out to keep being a contender.

#75 Buzzkill Pauley

  • 4,851 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 01:24 PM

Finding a 900ops is a tall order. You can't look at one factor. If the a kid can replace Youks or Ortiz maybe there is an improvement on D, and a financial ability to improve another area. With the terrible two (lackey and Crawford) eating up so much money it seems the Sox probably need a prospect or two to pan out to keep being a contender.


I'd imagine the Sox hope Lavarnway becomes a key piece to the puzzle of replacing Ortiz' power, and that (at least) one credible MLB'er develops out of Middlebrooks/Cecchini/Bogaerts.

#76 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,416 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:33 PM

They need to replace Ortiz with somebody who's going to hit 5th and put up a 900 OPS. Or maybe you're happy to not be competitive in 2013. I guess that's an option.


If they want somebody to put up a .900 OPS, they may have to replace Ortiz whether it's with Middlebrooks or somebody else. You are being awfully confident about the offensive output of a 37-year-old.

#77 JakeRae

  • 4,454 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:47 PM

I think you're wrong about my views on Pedroia. Maybe after a particular 0-5, I posted something in frustration, but my main memory of that early season struggle was thinking how well Francona was doing in spotting Cora heavily until Pedroia got going.

Let's be specific about what the Red Sox are facing if they essentially replace Ortiz with Middlebrooks. The 2013 lineup would be:

Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis (DH) are 1 thorugh 4. So far so good. But then you need some combination of Saltalamacchia/Lavarnway, Crawford, Middlebrooks, Kalish, Iglesias to hit 5-9.

Does that seems like a lineup capable of winning the AL East in 2013? They can't just replace Ortiz with Middlebrooks. They need to replace Ortiz with somebody who's going to hit 5th and put up a 900 OPS. Or maybe you're happy to not be competitive in 2013. I guess that's an option.

You don't need a 5th hitter or a 900 OPS. You need to replace the 7-8 fWAR Ortiz and Youkilis produce with one of Ortiz or Youkilis, Middlebrooks, and $12 million dollars. If Middlebrooks is worth 2-3 fWAR his rookie year, then there is a pretty good chance you can do that. If he's worth 3-4 fWAR then you should come out easily ahead. If he's worth fewer than 2 fWAR than your scouts and amateur talent people made a terrible decision in advising that he was ready for MLB. So, if he is ready, which was always the starting point for this possibility, there is every reason to consider handing him the job.

Of course, in all of this, everyone here is overlooking the virtual certainty that is Youkilis getting hurt and missing at least a month. Middlebrooks will almost definitely get an MLB audition this year before any decision has to be made on his MLB viability.

#78 YTF

  • 2,701 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:24 PM

Any chance the signing of Detroit's new DH helps Ortiz's cause going into arbitration?

#79 Bowlerman9


  • bitchslapped by Keith Law


  • 5,010 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:26 PM

Any chance the signing of Detroit's new DH helps Ortiz's cause going into arbitration?


Not really.

#80 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,036 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 04:29 PM

No. Arb cases are determined by whatever service time* bracket the player falls into. For Ortiz it is 12-14 years.

*And of course their stats etc.

Edited by rembrat, 24 January 2012 - 04:29 PM.


#81 Phil Plantier

  • 1,768 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:16 PM


Edes:

It appears "likely" that the Boston Red Sox and David Ortiz are headed to a hearing to decide his arbitration case, a major league source with knowledge of the situation said Wednesday.
Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington said Wednesday night that hearings for Ortiz and pitcher Alfredo Aceves are not scheduled for this week, so there is still time to negotiate.


If they do, and if the arbitrator sides with Ortiz, will the Red Sox really pay Ortiz 16.5 mil when they traded away their shortstops to save ~7 mil?


#82 Carl Everetts Therapist


  • yossarian


  • PipPip
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:25 PM

They don't have a choice...... If they loose the Hearing they have to pay him or trade him and No other team would take Ortiz at 16+mil either.

#83 SoxScout


  • SoSH Member


  • 28,737 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:32 PM

They don't have a choice...... If they loose the Hearing they have to pay him or trade him and No other team would take Ortiz at 16+mil either.


We could pay him $2.75M salary and let him go.

#84 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,118 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 03:44 PM

We could pay him $2.75M salary and let him go.


Maybe it's the mindset I've acquired this offseason, but if Ortiz wins, I'm beginning to think that's a real option.

#85 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 24,813 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 05:12 PM

I don't believe you can drop a player for non-baseball reasons, b/c you don't like his arb award (didn't Todd Walker win a grievance?). If Ortiz had an awful spring, maybe.

#86 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 23,195 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 05:21 PM

I don't believe you can drop a player for non-baseball reasons, b/c you don't like his arb award (didn't Todd Walker win a grievance?). If Ortiz had an awful spring, maybe.


You could trade him, pay half his salary, and trust Lavarnway to DH all year.

I wouldn't advise this, mind you, but if you're interested enough in cutting salary to trade a perfectly cromulent starting shortstop then you might consider it.

#87 Buzzkill Pauley

  • 4,851 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 06:00 PM

I don't believe you can drop a player for non-baseball reasons, b/c you don't like his arb award (didn't Todd Walker win a grievance?). If Ortiz had an awful spring, maybe.


Tony Graffanino was waived and all the Sox had to fork out was termination pay, I believe.

#88 Carroll Hardy

  • 2,266 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

You can certainly cut a player who is slugging < 400 on 30 April. Which David Ortiz has not been above on that date since 2007.

I don't think this will end well. For an administration that for 10 years obviously had a policy to never go to an arb hearing with anyone for any reason, this is very peculiar: if there was ever a case of someone to NOT take to arb, for at least 4 million reasons, not to mention the guy is probably one of the most sensitive, thin-skinned guys in Sox history, it would be David Ortiz.

Give him a ramp-down, two--year deal with a light 3rd year Player Option to get the AAV right and move on.

Unless your real unstated plan is to expect he will hit .250 with 1 HR while slugging .350 in April and you can then release him.

#89 SoxScout


  • SoSH Member


  • 28,737 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 06:36 PM

Walker was a Type "A" FA post-2006, and Padres GM Kevin Towers offered Walk salary arbitration, just so the Padres could get two 2007 Rule Draft picks after Walker signed elsewhere (or at least so it would appear). But then Walker accepted the arbitration offer, won his arbitration case (being awarded a $3.95M salary for 2007 after the Padres offered $2.75M).

However, the Padres released Walker prior to Opening Day, such that they had to pay him $971K to go away. So ihe gamble cost them about $1M, and they didn't get any draft picks, either.

But it didn't end there. Walker filed a grievance, charging that the Padres released him just to save $3M. If Walker had won the grievance, he would have received his entire $3.95M salary AND he would have been a totally unrestricted free-agent, too. But the Padres were able to show that Walker was (statistically) outplayed in Spring Training by another second-baseman (Marcus Giles) and by another back-up INF-LHPH (Geoff Blum), and so Walker lost his grievance and the Padres did not have to pay him his entire 2007 salary. The only problem is, MLB clubs never can be sure what an arbitration panel is going to do, And then what if Walker had had a really outstanding 2007 Spring Training? Kevin Towers just lucked-out.

http://www.thecubrep...wry-arbitration

The Sox were going to try and do it with Graffanino, but the Royals claimed him.

#90 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,036 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 06:39 PM

I would totally love it if say the Red Sox released Ortiz so they could save money and in turn watch the Yankees pick up Ortiz for a few million. Love. It.

#91 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 16,019 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 06:43 PM

If the Red Sox are concerned with losing revenue-sharing by being over the luxury tax limit in 2013, then Ortiz on a one-year contract for 2012 is the right duration for the team. Getting below the luxury tax limit is not as important for 2012 as it is for 2013. Signing Ortiz to a two-year contract does not make sense for the team, especially if they decide to exercise Youkilis' team option for 2013.

#92 bosockboy

  • 4,998 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 06:52 PM

Yeah the fact that he would immediately become a Yankee has to enter into their thinking.

#93 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,747 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 08:24 PM

I don't believe you can drop a player for non-baseball reasons, b/c you don't like his arb award (didn't Todd Walker win a grievance?). If Ortiz had an awful spring, maybe.


Cutting veterans who accept arbitration is always bandied about here as a legitimate option, but to my knowledge, it's never happened where the club couldn't argue with a straight face that the player didn't make the 25-man roster on merit.

The FO was surprised that Ortiz accepted arbitration. (So was I.) The unforeseen need to budget $14mm or so for a DH has been a major driver of the club's strategy this offseason.

I expect some kind of negotiated resolution here. Both sides submitted extremely aggressive numbers -- if there isn't a 2-year deal in the works, I think both sides will be relieved to settle somewhere around the midpoint.

#94 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,775 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:11 PM

You can certainly cut a player who is slugging < 400 on 30 April. Which David Ortiz has not been above on that date since 2007.
Unless your real unstated plan is to expect he will hit .250 with 1 HR while slugging .350 in April and you can then release him.


Releasing him in April doesn't save you any money. They'd have to release him by some date in March, I think about 2/3rds of the way through Spring Training, or the contract becomes guaranteed. There is no way the Red Sox would win a grievance if they dropped Ortiz because of a bad 3 week stretch of spring training, and I would personally burn my Red Sox memorabilia and become a Yankee fan until Henry sold the team if they went that route. I've defended them all winter and will continue to do so on any decision that is remotely defensible; dropping Ortiz because he wins an arbitration case would be the equivalent of sending a big note card to all the season ticket holders saying "Dear Rube, F**k You, Sincerely, John Henry"

Edited by Plympton91, 03 February 2012 - 09:12 PM.


#95 SoxScout


  • SoSH Member


  • 28,737 posts

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:27 PM

There is no way the Red Sox would win a grievance if they dropped Ortiz because of a bad 3 week stretch of spring training


Isn't that exactly how you win?

Edited by SoxScout, 03 February 2012 - 10:29 PM.


#96 SoxScout


  • SoSH Member


  • 28,737 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 05:33 PM

Got a question about salary arbitration? Ask Tal Smith.

Smith, a longtime front office executive, is regarded as an arbitration expert. He handled his first case for the Yankees in 1974, the year Major League Baseball adopted arbitration, and has since founded a consulting firm that helps teams prepare their cases and make an argument. He was among the first executives to bring analytics and even advanced metrics into the process, and over the years, he has prepared nearly 1,000 cases and taken more than 160 to a hearing.

“In Ortiz’ case, you have to take a look at home runs, RBIs, slugging, OPS and so on, and compare to other recent free-agent signings,” Smith said. “If they’re DHs, that’s great. If they’re not DHs, then you still make the argument and you give them some credit for defense and other contributions.”

Ortiz turned 36 in November and batted .309/.398/.554 with 29 homers and 96 RBI last season. Over the past four years, he has gone .271/.367/.513 with 112 homers and 386 RBI.

Meanwhile, White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko offers perhaps the best comparison. He is only four months younger than Ortiz, so both players will be 36 throughout this season. Last year, Konerko batted .300/.388/.517 with 31 homers and 105 RBI, and over the past four seasons, he has gone .284/.371/.511 with 120 homers and 366 RBI. And while Ortiz has become a franchise icon during a nine-year tenure with the Red Sox in which he has won two World Series, Konerko has achieved similar status with the White Sox, having played in Chicago since 1999 and won a championship in 2005. Before last season, Konerko signed a three-year, $37.5 million contract extension that paid him $12 million in 2011. He will make $12 million this year and $13.5 million next.

Based on those comparisons, it seems the Red Sox’ offer is more in line with the market than Ortiz’ request.

“The fact that he’s being offered slightly more than what he made last year at an advancing age,” Smith said, “I think that in itself is pretty good.”


http://www.bostonher...bitration-case/

#97 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 2,615 posts

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:57 PM

Isn't the market for DH's different though? Konerko at least plays 1st.

If Damon can't find a deal on the open market, and other solely DH types cant either, he should probably be making less than what Konerko is making.

This arbitration deal could be the difference between being able to afford Oswalt or not.

#98 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 23,195 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 12:58 AM

I would totally love it if say the Red Sox released Ortiz so they could save money and in turn watch the Yankees pick up Ortiz for a few million. Love. It.


Just so we're clear here, you realize that makes you an ass, right? I mean, pissing and moaning about this move or that move is one thing but actively rooting for moves you know are bad is like rooting for losses.

When people talk about how the Red Sox have become the Yankees, they're talking about stuff like this. Every team in this game save one has to worry about the budget and because this team does you're going to get all pissy and hope they make more bad moves for budgetary reasons? That reveals a sense of entitlement that is EXACTLY what we all despise in Yankee fans.

Congratulations on making us all look bad.

#99 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 14,036 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 02:42 AM

Do you not believe in sarcasm either?

#100 Drek717

  • 1,370 posts

Posted 05 February 2012 - 05:28 AM

Isn't the market for DH's different though? Konerko at least plays 1st.

If Damon can't find a deal on the open market, and other solely DH types cant either, he should probably be making less than what Konerko is making.

This arbitration deal could be the difference between being able to afford Oswalt or not.


Sure, but thats just more fuel to the fire as to why $12.65M is a very legitimate offer, while $16.5M is completely nutty. Konerko makes an AAV of $12.5M on a deal he signed just a year ago. He's slightly younger than Ortiz, he's been with Chicago longer than Ortiz has been here, he's won a title there while Ortiz has won two here, and their offensive numbers are very comparable. Meanwhile Konerko actually plays the field.

This shouldn't be a hard case for the Sox to make at all.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users